Talk:Blackburn Firecrest/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 11:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: no dead links (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: one repeat link to be removed:
 * Westland Wyvern

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "but the nail in the coffin was the"... seems a bit informal. Perhaps reword?
 * "The Firebrand took a lot of effort by Blackburn..." Firebrand should be wikilinked here I think.
 * Linked in the lede
 * Also consider rewording slightly to something like: "The Firebrand required significant effort from Blackburn to produce a useful aircraft"...
 * Good idea.
 * "raised the pilot's position so that he now looked over the leading edge" - wonder if my generic gender neutral language would be appropriate (unless we know for a fact that only male pilots flew it which is certainly very likely). Perhaps consider: "raised the pilot's position so that they now looked over the leading edge".
 * They were all male.
 * The prose here is fairly repetitive: " In September 1946 a strength analysis conducted by the Ministry of Supply revealed that the aircraft would require strengthening to serve as a strike fighter and that considerable work would be required to bring it up to requirements." (specifically "strength analysis" "require strengthening" "require to bring it up to requirements".
 * Reworded the statement in the lede to reduce duplication. See how it reads.
 * I made a few tweaks to ref formatting to use title case and an ISSN. Pls see my changes here . Pls revert anything you don't like.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article is well referenced with most major points cited to WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR that I could see.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail, while the level of coverage seems right given its limited service and the small number produced.
 * In the lead perhaps mention that it was a British aircraft? I think it would add necessary context.
 * A couple of points about time and intended user clarified. See how they read.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues I could see.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Images all seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates (although I'm a little uncertain about File:Blackburn YA1 1st.png it seems to be ok for Commons although I'll admit to not being an expert on images so you may want to check it if you take this further than GA).
 * Captions ok.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Article looks good to me, just a few prose points and a minor MOS issue above to deal with. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Think I addressed everything. Thanks for your comments; they've improved the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, those changes look fine. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)